Skip to main content
Where to ski

Compare ski resorts

Compare long-term ski-area quality, current conditions and short-term seven-day skiing scenarios without mixing their evidence.

Selected10 of 10
ProfileBalanced
ModeStructural
Comparison workspace

Shape the comparison

Set the comparison priorities, then inspect which selected resort fits best and what could change the result.

10 of 10 selected
Export
Add resorts

Balances permanent quality, snow reliability, terrain and current conditions.

Tune prioritiesBalanced
Decision weights

Missing resort data remain eligible: unavailable evidence is omitted and confidence falls instead of the resort receiving a zero.

More comparison optionsTrip context · direct add · display
Fit = structural suitabilityNow = current opportunityDecision combines both when timing makes current conditions relevant
How Benchmark works

Priorities determine the structural ranking; optional trip context refines those priorities without excluding a resort. Evidence describes data support, Stability tests nearby priority changes, and Frontier marks a non-dominated option on comparable evidence.

Trip contextOptional

Use these only when they matter for this trip. They adjust ranking and interpretation; they are not hidden filters.

Travel origin is preserved with the decision state; access scoring uses the selected arrival hub when one is chosen.
Display options
Comparison sections
Decision horizon
Recommendation

Decision summary

Chamonix is the strongest match because of strong terrain match · 86/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale, good reliability match · 71/100 — led by strong snow resilience. Breuil Cervinia is the strongest alternative. 5 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 5 options have limited evidence coverage.

Balanced profileSummer / glacier
Recommended

Chamonix

75/100
Why
  1. Chamonix is the strongest match because of strong terrain match · 86/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale, good reliability match · 71/100 — led by strong snow resilience. Breuil Cervinia is the strongest alternative. 5 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 5 options have limited evidence coverage.
Mixed evidenceUpdated 23 h ago
  • Strong structural fit for the selected priorities (82/100).
  • Solid upper-mountain snow base at 145 cm.
AlternativeBreuil Cervinia
Main uncertaintyMost of the evidence requested by this priority profile is available.
Would change ifA material forecast shift or a different priority profile could change the ranking.
Mixed evidenceUpdated 23 h ago10.8 pts lead
Next
Open webcamsShow on mapInspect forecast
Detailed comparison reasoningEvidence bridge, trade-offs and decision boundaries
Recommended for this profile

Chamonix

Advanced-terrain specialistLow-regret choice

Leads on strong terrain match · 86/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale, good reliability match · 71/100 — led by strong snow resilience.

Why Chamonix leads Breuil Cervinia Terrain fit +11.8 pts and Access +3.1 pts
Terrain fit +11.8Access +3.1Snow reliability -3.0Snow now -0.8
Incoming snow and Weather stay in the forecast layer unless current/forecast evidence is explicitly part of the Decision score.

Strongest alternativeBreuil Cervinia

Main uncertaintyMost of the evidence requested by this priority profile is available.

What could change the resultIf immediate snow and opening conditions dominate the decision, Dienten am Hochkonig becomes the stronger option.

Lead margin10.8pts

Difference between the first and second option.

Ranking stabilityHigh100%

The ranking changes little under nearby priority weights. Rank range 1–1.

Evidence confidence73%

Coverage and coherence of evidence used by this comparison.

Advanced analysisSensitivity, Pareto trade-offs and score contributions
Pareto frontier5 options

5 options are dominated on commonly available dimensions.

Why Chamonix leads Breuil Cervinia · 10.8 pts
Lift system+4.9 pts
Terrain+3.6 pts
Access+3.1 pts
Snow-3.0 pts
Family & value+2.2 pts
Scale+1.1 pts

Point contributions reconcile the structural Fit dimensions and confidence-limited current opportunity. Missing evidence is not treated as zero.

Priority sensitivity · what can change the winner?
Immediate conditionsDienten am Hochkonig

If immediate snow and opening conditions dominate the decision, Dienten am Hochkonig becomes the stronger option.

More comparison leadersAdditional category leaders

Resort overview

Trip match is profile-specific. Expand the calculation to see exactly how each score is built.

Chamonix

#1 · Chamonix Valley · France

Decision75/100
Fit82/100
Now29/100
Quality6.0/10
Now29145 cm upperReliability7171/100Terrain8686/100Access8563 min
Decision score composition

Fit remains the structural anchor. Current opportunity receives weight only when current evidence is available, covered and fresh; otherwise Decision falls back toward Fit.

Fit81.986% weight Now29.214% weight Decision74.7/100
Structural Fit calculation

Missing evidence is unknown, never zero. Available dimensions are rescaled to 100%; evidence coverage remains visible separately.

Snow71/100 · 73% evidence 16.9 / 24.0 pts
Terrain86/100 · 80% evidence 19.0 / 22.0 pts
Scale98/100 · 85% evidence 15.7 / 16.0 pts
Lift system76/100 · 68% evidence 10.7 / 14.0 pts
Access85/100 · 68% evidence 10.2 / 12.0 pts
Family & value79/100 · 41% evidence 9.5 / 12.0 pts

Data coverage: 71%

Current-opportunity calculation

Missing evidence is unknown, never zero. Available dimensions are rescaled to 100%; evidence coverage remains visible separately.

Mountain snow145 cm 20.7 / 42.9 pts
Fresh snow0 cm 0.0 / 22.9 pts
Valley snow30 cm 3.8 / 22.9 pts
Mid-mountain snow99 cm 4.7 / 11.4 pts
Open terrainNo data excluded
Snow qualityNo data excluded

Data coverage: 70%

Destination typeAdvanced-terrain specialistBest useAdvanced skiing · 84/100Snow reliabilityHighSki area175 km · 2,842 m verticalTerrain >2,000 m55%Best transfer63 minCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group150–299 km · Top 2,800+ mCalendar contextMountain snow is 133% above the available five-year level for this point in the season.
Strengths
  • Strong terrain match · 86/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale..
  • Good reliability match · 71/100 — led by strong snow resilience..

Breuil Cervinia

#2 · Matterhorn Ski Paradise · Italy

Decision64/100
Fit75/100
Now22/100
Quality9.2/10
Now2275 cm upperReliability9494/100Terrain7171/100Access61104 min
Decision score composition

Fit remains the structural anchor. Current opportunity receives weight only when current evidence is available, covered and fresh; otherwise Decision falls back toward Fit.

Fit75.478% weight Now22.022% weight Decision63.9/100
Structural Fit calculation

Missing evidence is unknown, never zero. Available dimensions are rescaled to 100%; evidence coverage remains visible separately.

Snow94/100 · 73% evidence 22.5 / 24.0 pts
Terrain75/100 · 80% evidence 16.4 / 22.0 pts
Scale99/100 · 100% evidence 15.9 / 16.0 pts
Lift system40/100 · 68% evidence 5.6 / 14.0 pts
Access61/100 · 68% evidence 7.3 / 12.0 pts
Family & value64/100 · 41% evidence 7.7 / 12.0 pts

Data coverage: 74%

Current-opportunity calculation

Missing evidence is unknown, never zero. Available dimensions are rescaled to 100%; evidence coverage remains visible separately.

Mountain snow75 cm 7.5 / 30.0 pts
Open terrain7% 1.4 / 20.0 pts
Fresh snow0 cm 0.0 / 16.0 pts
Valley snow19 cm 1.7 / 16.0 pts
Snow quality9.6/10 9.6 / 10.0 pts
Mid-mountain snow53 cm 1.8 / 8.0 pts

Data coverage: 100%

Destination typeHigh-alpine snow anchorBest useSnow-first trips · 81/100Snow reliabilityVery highSki area322 km · 2,337 m verticalTerrain >2,000 m92%Best transfer104 minCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group300+ km · Top 2,800+ mCalendar contextMountain snow is 40% below the available five-year level for this point in the season.
Strengths
  • Good terrain match · 71/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale..
  • Exceptional reliability match · 94/100 — led by strong snow resilience..
Consider

Lift-system evidence is less convincing.

Saas

#3 · Saastal · Switzerland

Decision64/100
Fit64/100
Now0/100
Quality8.7/10
Now00 cm freshReliability7474/100Terrain7070/100Access10441 min
Decision score composition

Fit remains the structural anchor. Current opportunity receives weight only when current evidence is available, covered and fresh; otherwise Decision falls back toward Fit.

Fit63.7100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision63.7/100
Structural Fit calculation

Missing evidence is unknown, never zero. Available dimensions are rescaled to 100%; evidence coverage remains visible separately.

Snow74/100 · 73% evidence 17.7 / 24.0 pts
Terrain74/100 · 80% evidence 16.3 / 22.0 pts
Scale97/100 · 85% evidence 15.5 / 16.0 pts
Lift system39/100 · 68% evidence 5.4 / 14.0 pts
Access10/100 · 68% evidence 1.2 / 12.0 pts
Family & value63/100 · 41% evidence 7.6 / 12.0 pts

Data coverage: 71%

Current-opportunity calculation

Missing evidence is unknown, never zero. Available dimensions are rescaled to 100%; evidence coverage remains visible separately.

Fresh snow0 cm 0.0 / 100.0 pts
Mid-mountain snowNo data excluded
Mountain snowNo data excluded
Open terrainNo data excluded
Snow qualityNo data excluded
Valley snowNo data excluded

Data coverage: 16%

Destination typeLarge-domain explorerBest useAdvanced skiing · 70/100Snow reliabilityVery highSki area142 km · 2,101 m verticalTerrain >2,000 m57%Best transfer441 minCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group50–149 km · Top 2,800+ m
Strengths
  • Good terrain match · 70/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale..
  • Good reliability match · 74/100 — led by strong snow resilience..
Consider

Access is a relative compromise.

Elm in Sernftal

#4 · Elm im Sernftal · Switzerland

Decision64/100
Fit64/100
Now0/100
Quality6.0/10
Now00 cm freshReliability6666/100Terrain6060/100Access7775 min
Decision score composition

Fit remains the structural anchor. Current opportunity receives weight only when current evidence is available, covered and fresh; otherwise Decision falls back toward Fit.

Fit63.7100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision63.7/100
Structural Fit calculation

Missing evidence is unknown, never zero. Available dimensions are rescaled to 100%; evidence coverage remains visible separately.

Snow66/100 · 37% evidence 15.8 / 24.0 pts
Terrain73/100 · 52% evidence 16.0 / 22.0 pts
Scale79/100 · 100% evidence 12.7 / 16.0 pts
Lift system9/100 · 68% evidence 1.3 / 14.0 pts
Access77/100 · 68% evidence 9.2 / 12.0 pts
Family & value72/100 · 41% evidence 8.7 / 12.0 pts

Data coverage: 59%

Current-opportunity calculation

Missing evidence is unknown, never zero. Available dimensions are rescaled to 100%; evidence coverage remains visible separately.

Fresh snow0 cm 0.0 / 100.0 pts
Mid-mountain snowNo data excluded
Mountain snowNo data excluded
Open terrainNo data excluded
Snow qualityNo data excluded
Valley snowNo data excluded

Data coverage: 16%

Destination typeBalanced all-rounderBest useAdvanced skiing · 66/100Snow reliabilityVery highSki area40 km · 1,085 m verticalBest transfer75 minCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top 2,000–2,799 m
Strengths
  • Solid terrain match · 60/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
  • Good reliability match · 66/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..
Consider

Lift-system evidence is less convincing.

Dienten am Hochkonig

#5 · Hochkonig Winterreich · Austria

Decision62/100
Fit68/100
Now30/100
Quality6.8/10
Now30150 cm upperReliability4747/100Terrain7272/100Access8469 min
Decision score composition

Fit remains the structural anchor. Current opportunity receives weight only when current evidence is available, covered and fresh; otherwise Decision falls back toward Fit.

Fit67.586% weight Now30.114% weight Decision62.4/100
Structural Fit calculation

Missing evidence is unknown, never zero. Available dimensions are rescaled to 100%; evidence coverage remains visible separately.

Snow47/100 · 73% evidence 11.3 / 24.0 pts
Terrain61/100 · 80% evidence 13.4 / 22.0 pts
Scale91/100 · 100% evidence 14.5 / 16.0 pts
Lift system59/100 · 68% evidence 8.3 / 14.0 pts
Access84/100 · 68% evidence 10.0 / 12.0 pts
Family & value84/100 · 41% evidence 10.1 / 12.0 pts

Data coverage: 74%

Current-opportunity calculation

Missing evidence is unknown, never zero. Available dimensions are rescaled to 100%; evidence coverage remains visible separately.

Mountain snow150 cm 21.4 / 42.9 pts
Fresh snow0 cm 0.0 / 22.9 pts
Valley snow30 cm 3.8 / 22.9 pts
Mid-mountain snow102 cm 4.9 / 11.4 pts
Open terrainNo data excluded
Snow qualityNo data excluded

Data coverage: 70%

Destination typeFamily progression baseBest useFamily trips · 71/100Snow reliabilityHighSki area120 km · 1,100 m verticalTerrain >2,000 m0%Best transfer69 minCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group50–149 km · Top <2,000 m
Strengths
  • Good terrain match · 72/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale..
  • Mixed reliability match · 47/100 — led by strong snow resilience..
Consider

Snow resilience is less distinctive.

Espot Esqui

#6 · Espot · Spain

Decision55/100
Fit59/100
Now1/100
Quality–/10
Now15 cm upperReliability6262/100Terrain5858/100
Decision score composition

Fit remains the structural anchor. Current opportunity receives weight only when current evidence is available, covered and fresh; otherwise Decision falls back toward Fit.

Fit59.192% weight Now1.18% weight Decision54.5/100
Structural Fit calculation

Missing evidence is unknown, never zero. Available dimensions are rescaled to 100%; evidence coverage remains visible separately.

Snow62/100 · 37% evidence 17.0 / 27.3 pts
Terrain68/100 · 44% evidence 17.0 / 25.0 pts
Scale60/100 · 100% evidence 10.9 / 18.2 pts
Lift system16/100 · 68% evidence 2.6 / 15.9 pts
Family & value86/100 · 41% evidence 11.7 / 13.6 pts
AccessNo data excluded

Data coverage: 49%

Current-opportunity calculation

Missing evidence is unknown, never zero. Available dimensions are rescaled to 100%; evidence coverage remains visible separately.

Mountain snow5 cm 1.1 / 65.2 pts
Fresh snow0 cm 0.0 / 34.8 pts
Mid-mountain snowNo data excluded
Open terrainNo data excluded
Snow qualityNo data excluded
Valley snowNo data excluded

Data coverage: 46%

Destination typeFamily progression baseBest useFamily trips · 63/100Snow reliabilityMarginalSki area25 km · 781 m verticalCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top 2,000–2,799 m
Strengths
  • Solid terrain match · 58/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
  • Solid reliability match · 62/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..
Consider

Lift-system evidence is less convincing.

Oppdal

#7 · Oppdal · Norway

Decision52/100
Fit58/100
Now18/100
Quality7.0/10
Now1879 cm upperReliability4040/100Terrain6464/100
Decision score composition

Fit remains the structural anchor. Current opportunity receives weight only when current evidence is available, covered and fresh; otherwise Decision falls back toward Fit.

Fit57.686% weight Now17.914% weight Decision52.2/100
Structural Fit calculation

Missing evidence is unknown, never zero. Available dimensions are rescaled to 100%; evidence coverage remains visible separately.

Snow40/100 · 37% evidence 11.0 / 27.3 pts
Terrain59/100 · 52% evidence 14.8 / 25.0 pts
Scale71/100 · 100% evidence 12.9 / 18.2 pts
Lift system46/100 · 68% evidence 7.3 / 15.9 pts
Family & value85/100 · 41% evidence 11.6 / 13.6 pts
AccessNo data excluded

Data coverage: 51%

Current-opportunity calculation

Missing evidence is unknown, never zero. Available dimensions are rescaled to 100%; evidence coverage remains visible separately.

Mountain snow79 cm 11.3 / 42.9 pts
Fresh snow0 cm 0.0 / 22.9 pts
Valley snow30 cm 3.8 / 22.9 pts
Mid-mountain snow59 cm 2.8 / 11.4 pts
Open terrainNo data excluded
Snow qualityNo data excluded

Data coverage: 70%

Destination typeFamily progression baseBest useFamily trips · 63/100Snow reliabilityModerateSki area56 km · 745 m verticalCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group50–149 km · Top <2,000 m
Strengths
  • Good terrain match · 64/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
  • Mixed reliability match · 40/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..
Consider

Snow resilience is less distinctive.

Bergun

#8 · Bergun Bravuogn · Switzerland

Decision43/100
Fit43/100
Now0/100
Quality6.5/10
Now00 cm freshReliability4848/100Terrain4545/100Access26133 min
Decision score composition

Fit remains the structural anchor. Current opportunity receives weight only when current evidence is available, covered and fresh; otherwise Decision falls back toward Fit.

Fit43.3100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision43.3/100
Structural Fit calculation

Missing evidence is unknown, never zero. Available dimensions are rescaled to 100%; evidence coverage remains visible separately.

Snow48/100 · 37% evidence 11.5 / 24.0 pts
Terrain20/100 · 39% evidence 4.3 / 22.0 pts
Scale20/100 · 100% evidence 3.1 / 16.0 pts
Lift system81/100 · 68% evidence 11.4 / 14.0 pts
Access26/100 · 68% evidence 3.1 / 12.0 pts
Family & value82/100 · 31% evidence 9.9 / 12.0 pts

Data coverage: 55%

Current-opportunity calculation

Missing evidence is unknown, never zero. Available dimensions are rescaled to 100%; evidence coverage remains visible separately.

Fresh snow0 cm 0.0 / 100.0 pts
Mid-mountain snowNo data excluded
Mountain snowNo data excluded
Open terrainNo data excluded
Snow qualityNo data excluded
Valley snowNo data excluded

Data coverage: 16%

Destination typeFamily progression baseBest useFamily trips · 54/100Snow reliabilityModerateSki area2 km · 169 m verticalBest transfer133 minCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top <2,000 m
Strengths
  • Mixed terrain match · 45/100 — led by strong lift-system evidence and strong terrain profile; partial evidence..
  • Mixed reliability match · 48/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..
Consider

Terrain depth is less distinctive.

Krieglach

#9 · Alpl Krieglach · Austria

Decision36/100
Fit36/100
Now0/100
Quality–/10
Now00 cm freshReliability2121/100Terrain4141/100
Decision score composition

Fit remains the structural anchor. Current opportunity receives weight only when current evidence is available, covered and fresh; otherwise Decision falls back toward Fit.

Fit35.5100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision35.5/100
Structural Fit calculation

Missing evidence is unknown, never zero. Available dimensions are rescaled to 100%; evidence coverage remains visible separately.

Snow21/100 · 37% evidence 5.8 / 27.3 pts
Terrain54/100 · 44% evidence 13.4 / 25.0 pts
Scale32/100 · 85% evidence 5.8 / 18.2 pts
Lift system13/100 · 8% evidence 2.1 / 15.9 pts
Family & value61/100 · 28% evidence 8.4 / 13.6 pts
AccessNo data excluded

Data coverage: 37%

Current-opportunity calculation

Missing evidence is unknown, never zero. Available dimensions are rescaled to 100%; evidence coverage remains visible separately.

Fresh snow0 cm 0.0 / 100.0 pts
Mid-mountain snowNo data excluded
Mountain snowNo data excluded
Open terrainNo data excluded
Snow qualityNo data excluded
Valley snowNo data excluded

Data coverage: 16%

Destination typeFamily-led destinationBest useAdvanced skiing · 40/100Snow reliabilityLowSki area8 km · 280 m verticalCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top <2,000 m
Strengths
  • Mixed terrain match · 41/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
  • Mixed reliability match · 21/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..
Consider

Snow resilience is less distinctive.

Breitnau

#10 · Breitnau · Germany

Decision24/100
Fit24/100
Now0/100
Quality–/10
Now00 cm freshReliability2323/100Terrain2525/100
Decision score composition

Fit remains the structural anchor. Current opportunity receives weight only when current evidence is available, covered and fresh; otherwise Decision falls back toward Fit.

Fit24.4100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision24.4/100
Structural Fit calculation

Missing evidence is unknown, never zero. Available dimensions are rescaled to 100%; evidence coverage remains visible separately.

Snow23/100 · 37% evidence 6.3 / 27.3 pts
Terrain2/100 · 31% evidence 0.5 / 25.0 pts
Scale10/100 · 100% evidence 1.9 / 18.2 pts
Lift system13/100 · 8% evidence 2.1 / 15.9 pts
Family & value100/100 · 18% evidence 13.6 / 13.6 pts
AccessNo data excluded

Data coverage: 35%

Current-opportunity calculation

Missing evidence is unknown, never zero. Available dimensions are rescaled to 100%; evidence coverage remains visible separately.

Fresh snow0 cm 0.0 / 100.0 pts
Mid-mountain snowNo data excluded
Mountain snowNo data excluded
Open terrainNo data excluded
Snow qualityNo data excluded
Valley snowNo data excluded

Data coverage: 16%

Destination typeFamily progression baseBest useSnow-first trips · 24/100Snow reliabilityLowSki area1 km · 69 m verticalCurrent dataUpdated for selected datePeer group<50 km · Top <2,000 m
Strengths
  • Mixed terrain match · 25/100 — led by substantial ski-area scale and strong terrain profile; partial evidence..
  • Mixed reliability match · 23/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..
Consider

Terrain depth is less distinctive.

Side-by-side evidence

Detailed comparison

Structural snow resilience uses the multi-winter early/core/late archive after daily de-duplication. Calendar-date rows separately compare current observations with the previous five years. Missing archive evidence remains unknown.

Scroll horizontally to compare resortsThe attribute column stays visible
AttributeChamonixChamonix ValleyBreuil CerviniaMatterhorn Ski ParadiseSaasSaastalElm in SernftalElm im SernftalDienten am HochkonigHochkonig WinterreichEspot EsquiEspot OppdalOppdalBergunBergun BravuognKrieglachAlpl KrieglachBreitnauBreitnau
Assessment
Decision score 75/100clear advantage64/10064/10064/10062/10055/10052/10043/10036/10024/100
Structural Fit 82/100clear advantage75/10064/10064/10068/10059/10058/10043/10036/10024/100
Current opportunity 29/10022/1000/1000/10030/1001/10018/1000/1000/1000/100
Overall quality 6.0/109.2/10clear advantage8.7/106.0/106.8/10–7.0/106.5/10––
Recommendation confidence MediumMediumMediumMediumMediumLowLowLowLowLow
Ski-area profile
Historical snow reliability 68/10076/10078/10070/10070/10045/10057/10059/1007/10026/100
Typical daytime high 3°C-2°C1°C3°C3°C9°C-4°C0°C7°C4°C
Typical snow/freezing level ––––––––––
Typical overnight low -4°C-7°C-6°C-5°C-5°C2°C-9°C-7°C1°C-2°C
Rating 8.1/108.1/107.4/105.6/107.0/106.2/107.4/105.8/10––
Area size class 150–250 km250+ km100–150 km20–50 km100–150 km20–50 km50–100 km20 km or less20 km or less20 km or less
Ability profile advancedadvancedadvancedadvancedintermediateintermediateintermediatenoviceadvancednovice
Price class highhighhighhighavg–avghigh–low
Terrain and altitude
Marked pistes 175 km322 kmclear advantage142 km40 km120 km25 km56 km2 km8 km1 km
Lowest point 1,000 m1,562 m1,472 m1,020 m800 m1,510 m585 m1,371 m1,000 m960 m
Highest point 3,842 m3,899 m3,573 m2,105 m1,900 m2,291 m1,330 m1,540 m1,280 m1,029 m
Vertical range 2,842 mclear advantage2,337 m2,101 m1,085 m1,100 m781 m745 m169 m280 m69 m
Blue pistes 34%23%22%38%43%52%71%100%25%100%
Red pistes 44%68%62%50%34%32%13%0%63%0%
Black pistes 22%8%16%13%23%16%16%0%13%0%
Terrain above 2,000 m 55%92%clear advantage57%–0%–––––
Terrain above 3,000 m 0%21%clear advantage0%–0%–––––
Piste-mix diversity 97/10074/10084/10089/10097/10091/10072/100–82/100–
Slope-angle diversity 86/100clear advantage51/10068/100–10/100–––––
Very/extremely steep terrain 21%clear advantage6%2%–0%–––––
Historical context
Historical snow resilience ––––––––––
Typical early-winter mountain depth ––––––––––
Typical core-winter mountain depth ––––––––––
Typical late-winter mountain depth ––––––––––
Snow consistency ––––––––––
Late-winter retention ––––––––––
Lower-mountain retention ––––––––––
Warm-winter resilience ––––––––––
Mountain snow versus typical Well above typical+133% vs average · 100th percentileWell below typical-40% vs average · 4th percentile––––––––
Valley snow versus typical –Below typical-40% vs average · 58th percentile––––––––
Open slopes versus typical –Close to typical-21% vs average · 46th percentile––––––––
Current snow
Valley snow 30 cm19 cm––30 cm–30 cm–––
Mid-mountain snow 99 cm53 cm––102 cm–59 cm–––
Mountain snow 145 cm75 cm––150 cm5 cm79 cm–––
Fresh snow 0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm
Snow quality –9.6/10––––––––
Snow alert 0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm0 cm
Open terrain and lifts
Open slopes –7%––––––––
Open lifts ––––––––––
Lift capacity per piste km 556 pph/km298 pph/km289 pph/km186 pph/km445 pph/km309 pph/km381 pph/km1,300 pph/kmclear advantage––
Lift-system coverage 0.48×0.28×0.28×0.15×0.32×0.15×0.29×0.65×clear advantage––
Terrain per lift 2.5 km/lift6.3 km/lift3.6 km/lift8.0 km/lift3.5 km/lift8.3 km/lift3.5 km/lift0.7 km/lift4.0 km/lift0.5 km/lift
Weather
Minimum temperature 4°C1°C1°C-1°C3°C7°C4°C2°C2°C3°C
Maximum temperature 11°C9°C6°C13°C9°C12°C6°C11°C6°C7°C
Suitability and facilities
Family suitability ––family––––family––
Piste variety slopesslopesslopes–slopes–––––
Off-piste offpisteoffpiste––––––––
Cross-country ––––––––––
Lift network –liftslifts–––––––
Mountain restaurants –restaurantsrestaurants–––––––
Après-ski –apresskiapresski–––––––
Public transport transittransit–transittransit–––––
Best airport transfer 63 min104 min441 min75 min69 min––133 min––
Skiing per transfer hour 166 km/h transfer186 km/h transfer19 km/h transfer32 km/h transfer104 km/h transfer––1 km/h transfer––